I. G. Tsereteli and the Class Struggle

Published:PravdaNo. 44, May 12 (April 29), 1917.

      Signed:N. Lenin.

      Published according to the text inPravda.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1964,

      Moscow,Volume 24,

      pages326-329.Translated:Isaacs BernardTranscription\Markup:B. BagginsandD. WaltersPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      1999

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Allthe papers have published, in full or in part, the speech
      whichI.
      G. Tseretelidelivered on April 27 at the ceremonial session
      of the deputies of all the Dumas, past and present.

Itwas quite a ministerial speech. The speech of a minister
      without a portfolio. Still, we think there is no harm,evenwhen ministers without portfolios make
      ministerial speeches, in sparing a thought for socialism,
      Marxism and the class struggle. To each his own. It behooves the
      bourgeoisie to shun all talk about the class struggle, to avoid
      analysing it, studying it, and making it a basis for determining
      policies. It behooves the bourgeoisie to dismiss these
      “disagreeable” and “tactless” subjects—as they say in
      parlours—and to sing the praises of “unity” of “all friends
      of freedom”. It behooves the proletarian party not to forget the
      class struggle.

Toeach his own.

Twobasic political ideas underlie I. G. Tsereteli’s
      speech. First, that a line can and should be drawn between two
      “sections” of the bourgeoisie. One section “has come to an
      agreement with the democrats”; the position of this bourgeoisie
      insecure. The other consists of “irresponsible elements of the
      bourgeoisie who are provoking civil war”, or, as Tsereteli
      describes them, “many people from among the moderate elements of
      the property-owners”.

Thespeaker’s second political idea is this: “Any attempt right
      now to proclaim [!?] the dictatorship of the proletariat and the
      peasantry” would be a “desperate” attempt, and he, Tsereteli,
      would agree to such a desperate attempt only if he could believe
      for one minute that Shulgin’s ideas were really “shared by  all
      the property-owning bourgeoisie”.

Letus examine these two political ideas of I. G. Tsereteli,
      who, as befits a minister without a portfolio or a candidatefor
      the ministry, has taken a middle-of-the-road stand—neither
      for reaction nor for revolution, neither with Shulgin  nor with
      the adherents of ’desperate attempts”.

Whatclass distinctions between the two indicated sections  of
      the bourgeoisie did Tsereteli make? None at all. It did not
      even occur to Tsereteli that there would be no harm in shaping
      policies on the basis of the class struggle. Both “Sections” of
      the bourgeoisie, in class substance, are landowners and
      capitalists. Tsereteli did not mention a word about Shulginnotrepresenting the same classes or sub-classes as
      Guchkov represents—the latter a member of the Provisional
      Government and  an important one  at that. Tsereteli singles out
      the ideas  of Shulgin from those of the “entire” property-owning
      bourgeoisie, but givesnoreasons for doing so. Nor
      could he give any. Shulgin stands for the undivided power of the
      Provisional Government; he is against supervision of that
      government by the armed soldiers; he is against “anti-British
      propaganda”, against the soldiers being “set on” the “officer
      class”, against the propaganda ofPetrogradskaya
      Storona,[2]etc. These ideas are to be found every day in the
      columns ofRech, in the speeches and manifestos of the
      ministers with portfolios, etc.

Theonly difference is that Shulgin speaks more “glibly”, while
      the Provisional Government, being a government,speaksmore discreetly; Shulgin speaks in a deep voice, Milyukov in a
      falsetto. Milyukov is  for an agreement with  the Soviet, and
      Shulgin, too, hasnothing againstsuch an
      agreement. Both Shulgin and Milyukov are for “other methods of
      control” (not control by armed soldiers).

Tseretelihas thrown overboard all ideas of the class
      struggle. He has madenomention of class
      distinctions or any serious political distinctions between “the
      two sections” of the bourgeoisie, nor did he think of mentioning
      them.

By“democrats”, referred to in his speech. Tsereteli meant  “the
      proletariat and the revolutionary peasantry”. Let us  examine
      this class definition. The bourgeoisie has entered into an
      agreement with these democrats. One is entitled to  ask, what
      forms thebasisof this agreement, by whatclassinterests is it upheld?

Nota word  about this in Tsereteli’s speech. All he speaks
      about is a “common democratic platform which has nowproved
      acceptable to the whole country”, i.e., evidently to the
      proletarians and the peasants, since the “country” is really the
      workers and peasants minus the property-owners.

Doesthis platform exclude, say, the question of the land? It
      does not. The platform side-steps it. Do class interests and
      their conflicts disappear by being side-stepped in  diplomatic
      documents, deeds of “agreement”, and the  speeches and
      statements of ministers?

Tsereteli“forgot” to  raise this question, forgot a “trivial
      detail”—he “merely” forgot the class interests and the
      class struggle....

“Allthe problems of the Russian revolution,” expatiates
      I. G. Tsereteli, “the very crux of it [!?] depend on whether
      the propertied classes [i.e., the landowners and capitalists]
      will understand that this is a national platform and not a
      specially proletarian platform.”

Poorlandowners and capitalists! They are so slow-witted.  They
      “do not understand”. They need a special minister of the
      democracy to teach them what’s what.

Maybethis spokesman of the “democrats” has forgotten the class
      struggle, has adopted the stand of Louis Blanc, and is
      dismissing the conflict of class interests with mere phrases?

Isit Shulgin and Guchkov with Milyukov who “do not
      understand” that the peasantcanbe reconciled with
      the  landowner on a platform that side-steps the land question?
      Or is it I. G. Tsereteli who “does not understand” that thiscannotbe done?

Theworkers and peasants must confine themselves to what  is
      “acceptable” to the landowners and capitalists—that is the
      real gist (the class, not the verbal, gist) of the Shulgin
      Milyukov-Plekhanov position.  And they “understand” it better
      than Tsereteli does.

Thisbrings us to Tsereteli’s second political idea—that
      the  dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry (a
      dictator ship, by the way, is won, not “proclaimed”) would be a
      desperate attempt. In the first place, to speak so simply of
      this dictatorship nowadays  is likely to land Tsereteli in  the
      archives of the “old
Bolsheviks”.[1]Secondly,and mostimportant of all, the workers and peasants
      constitute the vast majority of the population. And does not
      “democracy” mean carrying out the will of the majority?

Howthen can one be a democrat, and yet beopposedto
      the “dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry”? flow
      can one fear “civil war” from it? (What kind of civil  war?Thatof a handful  of landowners and capitalistsagainstthe workers and peasants? That of an
      insignificant minority against an overwhelming majority?)

I.G. Tsereteli is hopelessly muddled.  He has even forgotten
      that Lvov and Co. carry out their promise to convene the
      Constituent Assembly, the latter would become a “dictatorship”
      of the  majority. Or must the workers and peasants, even in the
      Constituent Assembly, confine them selves to what is
      “acceptable” to the landowners and the  capitalists?

Theworkers and peasants are the vast majority. All power  to
      this majority is, if you please, a “desperate attempt”....

Tsereteliis in a muddle because he has completely over looked
      the class struggle. lie has abandoned the standpoint of  Marxism
      for that of Louis Blanc, who talked himself out of  the class
      struggle.

Thetask of a proletarian leader is to clarify the difference in
      class interests and persuade certain sections of the petty
      bourgeoisie (namely, the poor peasants) to choose between  the
      workers and the capitalists, to take sides with the workers.

Thetask of petty-bourgeois Louis Blancs is to play down  the
      difference in class interests and persuade certain sections  of
      the bourgeoisie (mainly the intellectuals and parliamentarians)
      to “agree” with the workers, to persuade the workers to “agree”
      with the capitalists, and the peasants to “agree” with the
      landowners.

LouisBlanc tried hard to persuade the Paris bourgeoisie, and,
      as we know, all but persuaded it to refrain from the mass
      shootings of 1848 and 1871.

[1]Seemy "Letters on Tactics”.

(See pp. 45–46 of this volume.—Ed.)
—Lenin

[2][PLACEHOLDER.]